[ Register ]  [ F.A.Q. ] [ Magic Café Donations ] Username: Password:        [ Lost Password ]   [ Forgot Username ]

The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The February 2003 entrée: Curtis Kam » » Why bother? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED Paul Chosse V.I.P. 1955 - 2010 2389 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 3:24pm       Hi Curtis! As you can see by the threads' title, there's trouble abrewing! Just kidding... Anyway, here's the question - how do you fix up repetitive tricks like coins across, coins thru, etc.? See, from my point of view, these are just puzzles. I make a coin go across, then I do it again, then again, then again, then I'm done. Ho hum! After the first coin it is just a puzzle, however clever each successive phase is. There is no conflict, no surprise, no real payoff. The spectator is challenged to catch the performer, and then (hopefully) defeated. I guess there is something to be said for the beauty of the transpositons, but they really cease to constitute magic when done repeatedly. Even Tony presented the coins thru or across as challenge effects. He just did it openly! And, I doubt that anyone other than Slydini could really get away with that presentation. There is no real plot, as in a theater piece, and even with surprise payoffs like full vanishes, or all the coins going in reverse ala Bertrams' original version in Stars of Magic, the audince is still watching a "show and tell" performance. So, I guess I'm asking for your thoughts about my perception of certain effects as non-theatrical, and what you do to fix that, or do you even need to fix it? Best, PSC "You can't steal a gift..." Dizzy Gillespie Curtis Kam V.I.P. same as you, plus 3 and enough to make 3420 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 4:58pm       Wow, I should have known this was going to be a tough question, coming from you, Paul. It's tough to know where to start, and I know you already have answered this one for yourself, so I'm not going to pretend that I'm telling you anything new. However, some observations about this: No matter where the analysis takes us, the most important thing is to ask the question, and seek an answer. I doubt there is any answer that will put this concern to rest, and I doubt putting it to rest is the right thing to do anyway. Another initial observation: there are "coins across" routines that involve theatrical principles successfully. Tommy Wonder's routine involves a misbehaving coin that sends all the others across in its stead. The first phase involves three more ordinary transpositions which serve to set the stage for the repeat. The contrary coin also passes through his hand, and appears in his eye. Another you have already cited. Tony Slydini made the spectators into characters in the plot. This is a familiar theatrical device, somewhere between Comedia del Arte and "Murder Mystery Dinners". Tony's character is impossible to duplicate, however, his excuse for repeating the effect, the professed desire for the spectators to "See it" or to "understand", is useable in other contexts. So it can be done. Must it be done in every case? I'm not so sure. One more observation: Repetition is not essential. In fact, done unthinkingly, it is risky and boring. It should be used only with care. If you're making a coin go through the table four times in a row, and the only reason is that you've got four coins, you're basically letting your props write your show. I do a three-coin routine in my table-to-table work. The first coin goes through the table. The second goes across. The third falls up. No one has ever been disturbed by the fact that the coins did not all do the same thing. They're all magic coins, and they each do a different trick. So, no repetition, no problem. I guess the real answer is that repetition itself is a theatrical device, not an inevitable part of any routine. If you need a theatrical device to justify the repetition, you probably don't need the repetition. However, let's assume that some effects are enhanced through repetition. I happen to think that that is true. How do you do that? One way is to use repetition to build a cumulative effect. Gary Kurtz tells the story of someone telling him that watching a multiphase routine gave him the feeling of a sustained, pleasant hallucination. Gary's famous "Full Frontal Assault" was his attempt to hit the viewer with a relentless flow of magical events, in a three-beat pattern (the three coins) all linked and similar, but different. Yes, the audience can only sit and watch, but they also sit and experience a Symphony. Another way to do this is to mix repetition with surprise. That sounds oxymoronic, but I will offer this as an example: Compare "coins across" with Tony Slydini's "One Coin Routine". "OCR" is plainly repetitious, involving the vanish and reappearance of a single coin, over and over. The basic deception (the false placement, or steal of a coin from the hand) is the same in the two routines. Any yet, where there is only one coin, each time the effect repeats there is a suprise. The coin becomes a character, and the repetitions become its idea. That it not possible when the performer shows us four coins, and states that they will travel from one hand to the other. I understand that Sol Stone dislikes repetitious effects for just these reasons. His magic generally involves singular events that occur, and then they are over. While that eliminates many of my favorite effects, I can see where he's coming from. It seems, for better or worse, that David Blaine favors one-shot effects for television performance as well. All that being said, I admit that I do have elements of repetition in my effects based on "coins across". There is, as you say, magic in the transpositions, and I think that showing magic to the audience has something to do with why I'm there. Specifically for coins across, I find that it is enough to script things so that there is something different about each phase, and that the phases build upon each other. They show a little more, or are a little more impossible, with each step. That's enough dramatic structure for most work. It's not "King Lear" but then again, it's not supposed to be. The moral is that yes, plain unadorned, unthinking repetition is bad theater, but it doesn't take much to make it good theater. It's just a shame that many magicians fail to make the effort. Whew. Is THAT a PALMS OF STEEL 5 Banner I see? YARRRRGH! Please visit The Magic Bakery Chris Berry Special user 831 Posts Posted: Feb 18, 2003 9:01pm       Thanks a lot pchosse, I have been working on a Mr. Clean Coins Across and my version of coins through table...now I realize it's been a waste of time. Looks like I need to quit coin magic. chris j/k! Good question, though!! The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The February 2003 entrée: Curtis Kam » » Why bother? » » TOPIC IS LOCKED <<< Previous Topic   Next Topic >>>

[ Top of Page ]

All content & postings Copyright © 2001- 2013 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.056031 seconds, requiring 9 database queries.

The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.

Privacy Statement